4.6 Article

Determinants of relaxation rate in rabbit skinned skeletal muscle fibres

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 545, 期 3, 页码 887-901

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2002.031757

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR 20792, K01 AR002079] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of Ca2+-activated force, the rate of dissociation of Ca2+ from troponin C (TnC) and decreased crossbridge detachment rate on the time course of relaxation induced by flash photolysis of diazo-2 in rabbit skinned psoas fibres was investigated at 15 degreesC. The rate of relaxation increased as the diazo-2 chelating capacity (i.e. free [diazo-2]/free [Ca2+]) increased. At a constant diazo-2 chelating capacity, the rate of relaxation was independent of the pre-photolysis Ca2+-activated force in the range 0.3-0.8 of maximum isometric force. A TnC mutant that exhibited increased Ca2+ sensitivity caused by a decreased Ca2+ dissociation rate in solution (M82Q TnC) also increased the Ca2+ sensitivity of steady-state force and decreased the rate of relaxation in fibres by approximately twofold. In contrast, a TnC mutant with decreased Ca2+ sensitivity caused by an increased Ca2+ dissociation rate in solution (NHdel TnC) decreased the Ca2+ sensitivity of steady-state force but did not accelerate relaxation. Decreasing the rate of crossbridge kinetics by reducing intracellular inorganic phosphate concentration ([P-i]) slowed relaxation by approximately twofold and led to two phases of relaxation, a slow linear phase followed by a fast exponential phase. In fibres, M82Q TnC further slowed relaxation in low [P-i] conditions by approximately twofold, whereas NHdeI TnC had no significant effect on relaxation. These results are consistent with the interpretation that the Ca2+-dissociation rate and crossbridge detachment rate are similar in fast-twitch skeletal muscle, such that decreasing either rate slows relaxation, but accelerating Ca2+ dissociation has little effect on relaxation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据